The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

Although the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was unable to receive a written notice of receipt of the record of appeal in a case subject to review, the Supreme Court asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal and did not submit a written notice of receipt of the record of appeal within the statutory period, and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to review.

According to the records, it is recognized that the plaintiff was served with a notice of receipt of the final appeal on August 19, 2017 and signed directly on the received column, which is the domicile of Pyeongtaek-si C and D, which is the domicile of which he reported to the court, and that he did not submit the final appeal within 20 days from that time.

Therefore, there is no ground for retrial as alleged by the Plaintiff in the instant judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds as seen earlier.

Other grounds asserted by the Plaintiff do not constitute legitimate grounds for retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.